FBI agent under oath: FBI met weekly with Big Tech to censor political information.

[Curried Goats]

1`) sigh...you are clearly just trolling at this point...we've been through this. Tweeter isn't someone's front yard.

Its someone's private property of which you are a guest of so in this instance it is the equivalent.

2) Being a customer or guest isn't relevant...why do you think only Guest get Constituitonal protections from the Govt? geez....where is that in the Constitution?

Customers have a constitutionally protected right to not be denied service. As a guest on someone's property you have no right to free speech. That's why the distinction is important.

3) Never said I had a right to tweeter....but i do have a first amendment right, and if tweeter is a state actor they have no right to censor my political speech..

They don't have a right to censor your speech on your property. They do have the right to censor speech on their property, even if they're best buds with the government.

4) Tweeter working as a state actor can not violate my first amendment right...anymore then the fbi can...

They cant, as a state actor, violate your rights to free speech where you have a right to free speech. Since you don't have a right to free speech on Twitter no such violation has occurred.

5) Tweeter apparently worked as a State Actor...and in doing so violated people's first amendment rights.

Except you have no free speech rights on other people's private property to violate.

We have already established the State Actor doctrine, can apply to private individuals and companies.

When they are violating peoples rights on behalf of the government, like your right to not be denied service. Not your made up right to free speech on private property.

When Tweeter worked on behalf of the FBI they became a State Actor working to suppress political speech protected by the Constitution.

Wrong.

 

[Oldestyle]

Their testimonies certainly blows away the Neo-GOP narrative putting the blame entirely on Joe.

"Under the Doha agreement, the United States would begin to withdraw its forces contingent upon the Taliban meeting certain conditions, which would lead to a political agreement between the Taliban and the government of Afghanistan. There were seven conditions applicable to the Taliban and eight to the United States. While the Taliban did not attack the United States forces, which was one of the conditions, it failed to fully honor any other condition under the Doha agreement. And perhaps most importantly, for the United States national security, the Taliban has never renounced their linkages with Al Qaeda or broke their affiliation with them.

General Milley: (26:33)
We, the United States adhered to every condition. In the fall of 2020, my analysis then was that an accelerated withdrawal without meeting specific and necessary conditions risks losing the substantial gains made in Afghanistan, would potentially damage US worldwide credibility and could precipitate a general collapse of the Afghan security forces and the Afghan government, resulting in a complete Taliban takeover or a general civil war.....That analysis was a year ago. Based on my advice and the advice of the commanders at the time, then Secretary of Defense Esper submitted a memorandum on nine November recommending that we maintain the US forces, which were then at about 4,500 in Afghanistan until conditions were met for further reductions. Two days later on 11 November, I received an unclassified signed order directing the United States military to withdraw all forces from Afghanistan by 15 January, 2021. After further discussion regarding the risks associated with such a withdrawal, all the order was rescinded. On 17 November, we received a new order to reduce troop levels to 2,500 plus enabling forces no later than 15 January."

Joe Biden was the Commander In Chief, Boo! You do know what that term means...correct?

 

[struth]

The FBI has the alleged laptop. Without a chain of custody or collaborating evidence like the other end of an email, all the data on it is suspect. The most that has come from the FBI is tax and civil stuff against Hunter.

other parties on the email chain came forward already confirming the emails

Hunter Biden business partner calls email 'genuine,' says Hunter sought dad's advice on deals​

Tony Bobulinski said he does not believe Joe Biden's claim that he did not discuss his son's business dealings​

Hunter Biden business partner calls email 'genuine,' says Hunter sought dad's advice on deals

Tony Bobulinski, who was listed as the recipient of an email published by the New York Post that appeared to detail a business arrangement involving a Chinese company and members of the Biden family, has confirmed that the email is "genuine" and provided more information regarding the Bidens'...

www.foxnews.com

 

[Marener]

I fabricated nothing up.

" That suit accuses high-ranking government officials of working with giant social media companies "under the guise of combating misinformation" to achieve greater censorship."

That was the entire bases for the testimony of the FBI whisleblower.

That’s the basis for the lawsuit, which is not a statement of fact.

 

[Oldestyle]

The FBI has the alleged laptop. Without a chain of custody or collaborating evidence like the other end of an email, all the data on it is suspect. The most that has come from the FBI is tax and civil stuff against Hunter.

Are you seriously still trying to claim that that lap top and it's contents aren't legitimate, Boo? You must not have gotten the memo...not even the water carriers for Biden at the Main Stream Media outlets are sticking with that story anymore! It's Hunter's. The contents paint a clear picture of what the Biden's have been up to. Deal with it.

 

[struth]

Its someone's private property of which you are a guest of so in this instance it is the equivalent.

Customers have a constitutionally protected right to not be denied service. As a guest on someone's property you have no right to free speech. That's why the distinction is important.

They don't have a right to censor your speech on your property. They do have the right to censor speech on their property, even if they're best buds with the government.

They cant, as a state actor, violate your rights to free speech where you have a right to free speech. Since you don't have a right to free speech on Twitter no such violation has occurred.

Except you have no free speech rights on other people's private property to violate.

When they are violating peoples rights on behalf of the government, like your right to not be denied service. Not your made up right to free speech on private property.

Wrong.

1) that person, or entity if a state actor has no right to violate my Constitutional Rights. I am not sure what sort of business you are in, but yes, if your business becomes a State Actor your company can't violate my rights
2) Not sure where that is in the Consitution...provide that for us please. With that said, the Constitution does say the Govt can't violate people's Constituitonal rights, including the First Amendment....the State Actor Doctrine is a legal doctrine where individual and private companies can become actors of the State, and in doing so, violate people Constitutional rights. That's the issue in this law suit.
3) Where do you think the Govt has a right to violate my free speech on facebook or tweeter?
4) sure I can...if that property is open, and that company becomes a state actor. Every day people go to tweeter.com and they are asked if they want to create an account....they are invited on to the platform....but that's not really relevant, all that matter is if Tweeter was a state actor for the FBI....the lawsuit continues on....
5) the first amendment isn't "made up" .... it's literally the first amendment.

 

[struth]

That’s the basis for the lawsuit, which is not a statement of fact.

yes, it's a stated fact as to the bases of their lawsuit. frankly, I think the lawsuit should be dismissed at this point cause it's moot now that the bad actors at tweeter lost their company....but that's just my opinion. Not sure what sort of relief the State Attorney Generals think they can get for their citizens at this point

 

[Marener]

yes, it's a stated fact as to the bases of their lawsuit.

Nope. Those are allegations, not facts.

There’s a difference.

The testimony doesn’t corroborate them, otherwise the article assuredly would have mentioned such a bombshell.

 

[nomadic5]

No, this is what Fascism looks like

View attachment 734622

right

People should just sit down and shut up when their country is being stolen out from under them

We should all just conduct "business as usual" and let the Hitlers of the world be Hitlers

 

[BlindBoo]

Joe Biden was the Commander In Chief, Boo! You do know what that term means...correct?

He was not the Commander in Chief who oversaw the implementation of the Doha Accords. Nor was he the Commander in Chief during the accelerated withdrawal from the 8,600 troops to the bare minimum needed to support the Afghan Army in the field, 2,500. With Trump as CiC the so called Conditional Withdrawal's was not based on the Taliban achieving the conditions of the agreement, is was more like "We're gonna Skedaddle as long as you don't shoot at us" Accord.

Biden didn't change that either. But he started with the 2,500.

 

[Curried Goats]

3) Where do you think the Govt has a right to violate my free speech on facebook or tweeter?

What free speech rights on Facebook or Twitter? You have no free speech rights there. You have conditional privileges there as per the owner.

4) sure I can...if that property is open, and that company becomes a state actor. Every day people go to tweeter.com and they are asked if they want to create an account....they are invited on to the platform....but that's not really relevant, all that matter is if Tweeter was a state actor for the FBI....the lawsuit continues on....

It does matter. The property isn't open just because I invite people on to it and just because I invite people on to it doesn't mean I lose the right to demand that they leave.

5) the first amendment isn't "made up" .... it's literally the first amendment.

And it doesn't exist on someone else property. Their ownership of the property supercedes your right to speak there.

 

[struth]

Nope. Those are allegations, not facts.

There’s a difference.

The testimony doesn’t corroborate them, otherwise the article assuredly would have mentioned such a bombshell.

of course the testimony helps....this is why the Court ordered the disposition.

 

[WEATHER53]

I am free to discriminate with who I allow or don't allow on my lawn. Buy a clue, Short Bus.

Then tell the nig$&@s to get off of it because you don’t allow them on it
If I ever rode the short bus I grew and am long off it. You are still a daily patron

 

[struth]

What free speech rights on Facebook or Twitter? You have no free speech rights there. You have conditional privileges there as per the owner.

It does matter. The property isn't open just because I invite people on to it and just because I invite people on to it doesn't mean I lose the right to demand that they leave.

And it doesn't exist on someone else property. Their ownership of the property supercedes your right to speak there.

The right is that the Govt, or Govt actors can't violate it...the State Actor Doctrine is so that the Govt can't use a State Actor (tweeter) to violate my rights. That's what the law suits are all about....that is why the Court have allowed them to continue on.

Sure it is, if someone is invited to come inside, it's open. Of course you can demand they leave, but if you are acting as a State Actor, then you can't violate their Constitutional rights.

You continue to ignore the State Actor Doctrine, that's fine...that's fine...stay uninformed.

 

[Marener]

of course the testimony helps....this is why the Court ordered the disposition.

Ordering the deposition is one thing. The testimony doesn’t necessarily help the plaintiff. This clearly doesn’t corroborate their allegation.

 

[WEATHER53]

Twitter is not a state actor.

Rutenburg v. Twitter, Inc., Case No. 4:21-cv-00548-YGR | Casetext Search + Citator

Read Rutenburg v. Twitter, Inc., Case No. 4:21-cv-00548-YGR, see flags on bad law, and search Casetext’s comprehensive legal database

casetext.com

The OP stated a crime was committed.

Twitter IS State when they function For the State

 

[rightwinger]

right

People should just sit down and shut up when their country is being stolen out from under them

We should all just conduct "business as usual" and let the Hitlers of the world be Hitlers

People shouldn’t listen to the rants of a prolific liar when they decide to storm the Capitol

 

[WEATHER53]

And has been noted you have no right to free speech on other people's property.

If a lawyer is doing a case for you pro bono you aren't a customer, you're charity, they do however accept the responsibilities of their profession at risk of their license. The second part is a red herring. In the case we are discussing it was about a customer being denied service. That's as relevant as the State Actor part.

Be specific. What constitutional rights were they ruled to have violated and how?

But you just said that you have no rights as a guest on Twitter so how could Twitter, even as a State Actor, violate rights that you don't have? That makes no sense.

Wrong. The private company was deemed a state actor because they lease space from a entity created by legislation and maintained through public funds and they denied a customer service because he was black.

You seem to be missing that key element.

You absolutely do have free speech rights on property not your own.

 

[Curried Goats]

The tell the nig$&@s to get off of it because you don’t allow them on it
If I ever rise the short bus I few and am king off it. You are still a daily patron

??

 

[WEATHER53]

What free speech rights on Facebook or Twitter? You have no free speech rights there. You have conditional privileges there as per the owner.

It does matter. The property isn't open just because I invite people on to it and just because I invite people on to it doesn't mean I lose the right to demand that they leave.

And it doesn't exist on someone else property. Their ownership of the property supercedes your right to speak there.

Your last paragraph is abysmally ignorant